If you want to put your graphics cards somewhere other than the expansion slots, go and buy a PCI-E riser adaptor. Some are in cable form so you could theoretically put the card external to the case.

Well as I said before, it used to be a good idea for BTX because it put the GPU in the right direction, although with blocked slots.

With a lot of BTX boards, the PCI x16 slot is usually the first (or in some cases, the second) slot away from the I/O panel so worst case you are losing one slot. I wish manufacturers other than Dell and HP (e.g. case, motherboard and heatsink manufacturers) would give BTX another chance as it did a lot of things right - especially around cooling and keeping down system noise (although these changes can be quite frustrating at times when trying to replace components with aftermarket hardware).

If you want to put your graphics cards somewhere other than the expansion slots, go and buy a PCI-E riser adaptor. Some are in cable form so you could theoretically put the card external to the case.

Well as I said before, it used to be a good idea for BTX because it put the GPU in the right direction, although with blocked slots.

With a lot of BTX boards, the PCI x16 slot is usually the first (or in some cases, the second) slot away from the I/O panel so worst case you are losing one slot.

I'm talking about using a 90Â° riser, which would place the card in parallel with the motherboard and practically cover all other slots.
The GPU will be facing the same side as the CPU, and that's what makes it a much better solution than using ATX. since it's possible to use a tower cooler.
In ATX the GPU would face down with a (âˆ’)90Â° riser, and the backside would be up.

If you want to put your graphics cards somewhere other than the expansion slots, go and buy a PCI-E riser adaptor. Some are in cable form so you could theoretically put the card external to the case.

Well as I said before, it used to be a good idea for BTX because it put the GPU in the right direction, although with blocked slots.

With a lot of BTX boards, the PCI x16 slot is usually the first (or in some cases, the second) slot away from the I/O panel so worst case you are losing one slot.

I'm talking about using a 90Â° riser, which would place the card in parallel with the motherboard and practically cover all other slots.The GPU will be facing the same side as the CPU, and that's what makes it a much better solution than using ATX. since it's possible to use a tower cooler.In ATX the GPU would face down with a (âˆ’)90Â° riser, and the backside would be up.

OK. I understand what you are envisioning now.

If that's what you're intending, then aren't you better off with ATX? That way if you have the PCIe x16 slot as the top slot and you are going with a 90-degree riser with the GPU facing up, you end up with the card over the I/O backplane area above the northbridge. Granted you'd need a board that has the CPU socket towards the front edge (e.g. front-is-front) of the motherboard so there would be space for the GPU and you wouldn't be able to use a long GPU card as it would infringe on the CPU area unless the board was some sort of eATX form factor. That way the CPU, northbridge and GPU would all be more-or-less inline to the rear fan.

However, I think there are bigger underlying problems for hardware companies to worry about solving - for example, why can't we build more efficient GPUs - rather than spending time creating yet another form factor.

Also, provided you are in a tower format where you don't have to worry about cantiliver effects on the video card, you could install a CPU heatsink on a GPU in a BTX case and have it in that primary airflow path over the CPU & northbridge.

If that's what you're intending, then aren't you better off with ATX? That way if you have the PCIe x16 slot as the top slot and you are going with a 90-degree riser with the GPU facing up, you end up with the card over the I/O backplane area above the northbridge. Granted you'd need a board that has the CPU socket towards the front edge (e.g. front-is-front) of the motherboard so there would be space for the GPU and you wouldn't be able to use a long GPU card as it would infringe on the CPU area unless the board was some sort of eATX form factor. That way the CPU, northbridge and GPU would all be more-or-less inline to the rear fan.

The reason why I'm NOT better off with ATX is because ofthe reasons you mentioned. The combination you suggest doesn't exist, it's just as theoretical as my suggestion.Good GPU cooling is needed when the graphics card runs very hot, let's say >80 W. Those cards are never as small as you describe.ATX boards are 245 mm, and hot cards are at least 215 mm, I'm not totally sure how this would work.

derekva wrote:

However, I think there are bigger underlying problems for hardware companies to worry about solving - for example, why can't we build more efficient GPUs - rather than spending time creating yet another form factor.

That may be a topic for another thread, in the meantime it would be nice to be able to use whatever graphics card I wanted without worrying that it won't be cooled quietly, something that doesn't occur with ANY high end CPU today.I think it's more likely that we'll see a new form factor that can take a steaming hot graphics card, than the whole GPU industry would make high end cards that never used more than, say, 100 W.The former could happen today, the latter won't happen for years.

derekva wrote:

Also, provided you are in a tower format where you don't have to worry about cantiliver effects on the video card, you could install a CPU heatsink on a GPU in a BTX case and have it in that primary airflow path over the CPU & northbridge.

I agree, but then we're back to square one: there are no more BTX made AFAIK. At least not for retail.

I think both the OP and I want the possibility to use two big coolers (think Scythe Ninja) next to each other (just like some dual CPU motherboards), and still have all slots available. No compromising.

Reading this thread makes me remember my dad's old PB computer. The ISA was implemented using a riser card and mounting system.

An interesting variant, based on a old Intel design would be a riser card(s) that on one side would have PCIe slots and on the other CPU slots for socket cards. This would probably add some latency however.

Personally I go more with the idea of moving the GPU off board with PCI-E extender cables - I figure that allows for evolution of the standard rather than revolution. However, I am old and as such *we fear change*.

How about sticking the graphics in a 5.25" bay? I figure that allows for more or less the same or greater total volume of space (not quite so long as current cards but with greater height/depth available could utilise double sided cards) and a single large fan in a shrouded unit could provide input and forced exhaust (input slot at the bottom of the bay, exhaust at the top)? Main problem I see is that this would likely (with typical current case design) place a potentially noisy fan at the front of the case and within hearing distance. That said, if you've got an effectively sealed unit in the graphics card then it's not venting volcanic quantities of convective heat into the case proper then perhaps you can do away with a front intake fan. I can't see a 5.25" bay GPU necessarily being mod friendly either - maybe limited to fan swapouts and/or placing a secondary fan bay underneath (or a second GPU in SLI/CrossFire config).

Over time we'd see the evolution of 5.25" backplanes that can provide power and data interfaces to the variety of gadgets stuck into these bays (nowadays typically limited to a CD/DVD reader/burner) - these backplanes then enable easy swaps, if not hotswap in the same way we're seeing 3.5" HDD bays evolving. Easy swap / hotswap appeals to the mass consumer market (which will drive any change), appeals to the corporate market (time is money), and keeps standards change slow (appeals to major systems builders).

None of this requires a change in ATX standards but would encourage a general move toward smaller form factors and eventually a new standard all together as the need for PCI slots diminishes - hell even the need for 5.25" / 3.5" bays has diminished over time now that we don't bother with floppy drives, ZIP drives and the like.

All that said, perhaps the ATX standard is in dire need of renewal. Sure, I can do a hell of a lot more with the computer I own now versus the one I had 25 years ago, but TV programmes of 25 years ago promised everything would be smaller - how come my current rig is literally ten times bigger and noisier than the one I owned 25 years ago? (ZX Speccy - US readers think Commodore 64 but smaller and cuter)

Oh, and wild tangent alert - whilst we're on standards - 5.25", 3.5", 2.5" - what's that all about? The UK is probably second only to the States as the most metric intolerant country on Earth but I'm pretty sure that on both sides of the Atlantic precision engineering and science is done in metric. Is it just coincidence that CDs (and hence for backwards compatability DVDs) fit nicely in a 5.25" bay? I kinda got the impression at the time that CD standards would have only really considered the audio market and probably not even considered that one day computers would (a) use them and (b) be a major user of them. At the time I vaguely recall various competing floppy disk standards with 3" and 3.5" both in the running as the defacto computer standard.

All that said, perhaps the ATX standard is in dire need of renewal. Sure, I can do a hell of a lot more with the computer I own now versus the one I had 25 years ago, but TV programmes of 25 years ago promised everything would be smaller - how come my current rig is literally ten times bigger and noisier than the one I owned 25 years ago? (ZX Speccy - US readers think Commodore 64 but smaller and cuter)

People are talking about using veeery long PCIe cables, wouldn't that affect performance quite much? I'm just asking, I don't know.
I don't see why the graphics card should be placed as far away from the motherboard as possibe in the case: in the upper front. Besides, you'd need 4 or 5 bays for a tower cooler.

Oh, and wild tangent alert - whilst we're on standards - 5.25", 3.5", 2.5" - what's that all about? The UK is probably second only to the States as the most metric intolerant country on Earth but I'm pretty sure that on both sides of the Atlantic precision engineering and science is done in metric. Is it just coincidence that CDs (and hence for backwards compatability DVDs) fit nicely in a 5.25" bay? I kinda got the impression at the time that CD standards would have only really considered the audio market and probably not even considered that one day computers would (a) use them and (b) be a major user of them. At the time I vaguely recall various competing floppy disk standards with 3" and 3.5" both in the running as the defacto computer standard.

Floppy was 5.25 and then shrunk to 3.5. Was it not even bigger before 5.25? I guess it was to make drive bays compatible.

Thanks for the welcome And ooooh - we like If I can run Visio, telnet/ssh and an email client on that I'm sold. Actually, I really am, that's fantastic. I guess the reason we all lug around hulking great rigs is so that we can ultimately play Crysis or whatever. Right now, my CPU is sat at 2% - I guess everyone elses is too. If you just want to do the basics you can go real small. Trouble I guess comes only when you do want to play internet spaceships/stormtroopers.

Oh, I remember 5.25" drives too, I used to have a real handy 5.25" / 3.5" combi drive that fitted in a single 5.25" bay. Can't say as I've ever used 8" drives in anger but I have seen them around. My first IT job involved installing networks in remote railway signal boxes - the (doubtless now redundant) signal operator invariably remarked "what do I need a computer for - I can see when train's coming" (generally whilst pointing through a grimey muck stained window, through which perception of more than 20 yards would be impossible).

I like both Eee desktop products, but I really prefer the box.
They're both very small and looks good, but the keyboard forces you to connect ALL cables directly to it, while the box gives you the choice to use a wireless keyboard = NO cables.
Or, imagine accidently getting some drink in the keyboard âˆ’
Eee box: get a new keyboard for >10$.
Eee keyboard: being stuck with sticky keys or a dead keyboard PC, or even the most embarrasing choice of hiding the Eee keyboard with it's sticky keys and use an external keyboard . .

If there's a market for yet another SFF form factor besides ÂµATX, flex ATX, mini-DTX, mini-ITX, nano-ITX, and pico-ITX, in the shape of the brand new em-ITX then it wouldn't surprise me if a different form factor would enter the market: optimized for graphics cards, ideal for HTPC's or compact gaming PC's, even with low profile cases.
It wouldn't "kill" ATX because the latter is the standard form factor that is used everywhere, but it would be a good choice for entertainment systems for living rooms.

This was a really interesting topic. Got me to think about this myself and I came to a simple and effective solution. No need to major overhauls just create a extra add-on specification that motherboards and add-on PCI etc cards may use as well as chassi makers to make it go all around. It requires way little effort and it created what many might want here. This could be implemented immediately basically.

Just read and look at the pictures. We need just a top placed horizontal PCI-E 16x connector on the motherboard and some extra holes on the add-on cards that might be designed to utilize this extra horizontal connection and support for heavy stuff. the extra holes isn't even necessarily needed for all cards as it can still be use old normal mounting way whit the PCI backplate brackets 2x high. You could place any card on the extra connector basically, and GPU makers could add the hole and socket retention support for their cards when needing heavy cooling on their top of the line cards. Chassi makers just need design some cases for the extra card slot and add the mounting holes for cards that might need them. For cards that don't have the mounting holes just don't use the distancers on the motherboard plate on those holes and use the only normal mounting to the backside of the chassi.

These are two segments, but both are minor compared with general purpose PCs (consumer and business) with good processing power and moderate graphics. This segment used to be full ATX but has moved to micro-atx and smaller form factors while at the same time notebooks take over.

Something I'm interesting in seeing more is a HTPC gaming machines. And the DTX+E thing I suggested could work quite nicely in such a environment.

We could today actually have a "Console PC" instead off a PS3, XBOX360 etc. You would only need to create a few standards these computers need to follow to be suited and acceptable and then a great interface has to be made. Games then need to be suited for one off the performance standards that is put on this special "Console PC", IE today would be quite nicely a 4870 as minimum and a quad-core some speed. This spec is kept for 2 years which after the spec is upgraded to that days middle ground hardware. You can choose to have better or worse hardware but the games will be designed for that specific threshold off hardware for a period. ETC...

Well pure HTPC:s might not need the most powerfull cards, just depends what specifically you have planned to do whit it. If it's just playback, a IGP shall do fine. but the image enhancement stuff will need more powerful cards if you want gpu to handle it. but still then lower mid-end and below is enough today.
A gaming HTPC is another matter though, but it's still a rarity today I would reckon. Most PC users still don't play games on their tv whit a hand controller or similar and keep to their monitor, mouse and keyboard I would think.

I see there is just need for 2 differently tasked computers for each home, a GHTPC (Gaming Home Theater Personal Computer) and a office kinda computer for the non-gaming and movie/tv watching. But there is always the option to do whichever on both computers though.

Well pure HTPC:s might not need the most powerfull cards, just depends what specifically you have planned to do whit it. If it's just playback, a IGP shall do fine. but the image enhancement stuff will need more powerful cards if you want gpu to handle it. but still then lower mid-end and below is enough today.

Yes, gaming is another matter. Re: image enhancement, only a few things are useful to get a faithful reproduction: monitor color correction, which is a software problem (any hardware could do it but current media players/graphics drivers/OSes don't), and upscaling, which is not hard to do decently IMO. And interpolation in the time dimension, which would need powerful hardware but is controversial and again the software isn't there. At the moment integrated graphics does 1/3 and discrete graphics does 1/3 and adds some useless gimmicks (as far as image enhancement is concerned).

I also think a dedicated GPU socket would be much better than the current situation. But it's just like QWERTY vs. DVORAK keyboards - the currnet form of ATX is the standard today and it would be too difficult for the whole industry to suddenly get out of that standard onto something better.

While I would definitely like a GPU socket it is not going to happen simply due to the immense cost for minimal benefit ( to the majority of users ).

I like the idea of PCI-E extenders so graphics cards could be externally used. It would definitely free up airflow in the case and be easier for many users to upgrade. This also has tremendous advantages to the extreme overclocking community. Tri-SLI is no longer a pain to cool. You don't have to worry about blocking slots since the connector barely uses any space. Normal users can use pci-E cards internally if they prefer so there is no pressure to change immediately. Laptop owners would definitely benefit. If you want to play games on your laptop now you just buy a 200 dollar external graphics card and you're good to go. External graphics cards have been tried before, but only using USB 2.0 which is pretty limiting. PCI-E would eliminate the performance gap and allow greater flexibility.

As for the ATX standard IT NEEDS TO DIE. I currently have space for 6 5.25 drives and 6 hard drives. With 1.5 terabyte drives costing 100 dollars, who the heck needs more than 2? Even if you're an extreme user, 2 1.5 TB hard drives in raid 0 with a 160GB SSD would be fine. The standard is so flawed it is unbelievable. Graphics cards are currently the hardest component to cool and any aftermarket solution usually costs 50-100% of the card's cost and more importantly blows hot air all around your case. The only solution I've seen that works well for lower end cards is a positive pressure case ( silverstone FT-01 ) and a passive card. On a 9600GT I was seeing 47C with no noise which was impressive and I'm surprised that SPCR didn't mention that if you are going fanless, positive pressure cases are the only way to go.

I'd definitely prefer the external pci-e solution. ATI XGP is currently the only solution out there, and I believe is limited to 3870. It shows that it is definitely possible though. Something needs to be done about computer cases though, they're insanely large considering what goes into them.

GPU is the longest running experiment making the world an expendible guinea pig. keep them removable in a different realm. A different plane of perpendicular is no complaint from me.
Physics of pipes on coolers have reversed cooling even dangling an accelero upside down on GPU effectively...no errors yet. glad someone built something.

ATX standard is to keep long term stuff off the boards, ya know, the dust that kills people. also a good reason to have an "upside down" gpu.

Go back to AT as an experiment...I did years ago. Reverse cooling and atx, with psu above the boards is common sense to me. Could not wait to get back to it.

But, question is, do consumer need such solution? For professional market there has been external graphic units for quite many years. At my work place we have external graphic unit, maybe Matrox or NVIDIA, I am not sure. However it is more than one unit in chain and connected over single cable to host PC. This is for special CAD rendering, also sometimes for video effects rendering in realtime.

It is definitely bulkier than internal single graphic card, but external units hold up to three or four graphic cards and we have multiple in chain, so I suspect we have at work place fifteen graphic card in external units. I would love to examine more, but I don't work in CAD department so only have seen units from distance, but they are very interesting However, extremely noisy as well

<sarcasm>But no, that can't make any sense. Instead, let's keep GPUs on cards. Then, the cooling system can't be very heavy. (Everyone knows lighter and smaller heatsinks perform better) AND because the cards are right next to your other expansion cards, the better (ie larger) cooling solutions block your other slots. (Awesome! Obviously, PCI slots were made to be blocked by GPU heatsinks and fans) Oh, and let's make the cards face down. (Heat definitely doesn't rise)</sarcasm>

On a serious note, do you see a problem? Cooling extremely hot GPUs, which are located on cards, is inherently difficult. Now I don't mean to bash the ATX standard. I'm sure that at the time it was created, it was logically designed and made sense. But that was over a decade ago! Today, ATX is outdated. Expansion cards should be used for simple expansions to the system's functionality. With the complexity of modern graphics cards, graphics in general is no longer what I consider an expansion. Today, graphics are a major fundamental aspect of a computer system.

My solution is simple. GPUs need to have their own socket. Yes, this is a radical proposal. However, it only makes sense. Utilizing a socket allows users to mount large heatsinks on the GPU. Wouldn't it be awesome to have a GTX 260/4870 with a TRUE on it? Temps would be amazing. And it could be cooled so much more quietly than using the stock blowers. Plus it wouldn't take 3 slots to mount a AC S1 + 120mm fan.

That will not work

Different GPU's require different

-PWM's
-Memory
-BIOSes
...etc

A socket will severely reduce flexibility
(Not to mention you can't replace stuff that's soldered onto the board, so if something goes bad, the whole board is bad)

1) the ION and work beeing done by intel to integrate a basic GPU into the CPU.
today's GPU's are no longer just a Graphic Processing Unit but also a General Perpose processor. this is very obvious if you follow new tech like CUDA and [email protected] running on GPU power.

the CPU is becoming very complex, and more capabilities are being integrated into the chip. like the memory controller on the AMD dual-core.
(this would of course tie the two together, as far as upgrades are concerned.)

3) modern computing is once again off loading tasks to peripherals. storage is often done on a file server. many processes are done on remote (web) application servers.
this could lead to an external "Graphics brick". some products already have gone in this direction (laptop, matrox multi head)

---
the main problem is identifying the market.
on the one hand the vast majority of PC sold don't need a 180 TDP graphics unit. nor do they need 10 drive bays. nor do they need 7 expansion slots.
for this market, the integrated graphics solution is going to be enough.
on the other hand, OC gamers are going to push the envelope on any platform. they want flexibility and power.

maybe we'll see a greater split between the platform that is offered to these separate groups.

The ATX Standard is for the most part dying. A lot of contemporary cases already vary from it greatly.

GPUs on a socket cannot happen. All flexibility would be lost. Everytime Intel/AMD make a bigger CPU transition, motherboards have to go, because the socket needs to change, the VRM, the chipsets.
The same thing goes for GPUs, but you don't notice, because they come on a board in the first place.

The biggest issue: finding combinations of fitting CPU and GPU sockets. You want to upgrade your GPU, but none of the motherboards with the current generation socket for your new GPU will fit your old CPU. Nice. Essentially it would lead to you having to buy a new combination of CPU/GPU/mainboard once a year or so.

maybe we'll see a greater split between the platform that is offered to these separate groups.

I doubt it, because the consumerist market being the way it is, people are absolutely convinced that they need MORE POWER. It is the same reason the vast majority of people aren't buying 120HP econoboxes.

People try to buy as much performance as their budget will allow and view that practice as value when in fact they should be lowering their budget to their own need. I am guilty of this.

Actually, what I would like to see tried is a 90* riser and Thermalright HR-03 combo. I think that would work out well, if not just be cool looking

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum